On Monday, August 15, 2005 7:31 PM MDT, Daryl Lytton <dlytton(a)mindspring.com>
wrote:
Well, there were no rules as to how rules should be made, and then a
process occurred when the elections guideline was created (the caps are mine)....
This set a precedent for how rule-making was to be done in the OHGenWeb.
One SC making a decision about procedure that a couple of subsequent SCs followed? That
doesn't sound like a precedent that should automatically be given the force of law. It
is just as easy to argue that the precedent is that SC has the initiative to organize
discussion however they want, which I'm sure you don't want to accept (nor do I).
I think that what the SCs were doing was following an unstructured version of democratic
meeting etiquette that is commonly used in many groups, and that was very admirable of
them. But in such circumstances committees are also commonly called for, so don't
claim it has to be exactly this way, because in common practice it isn't.
I'll also note that, that since the USGenWeb bylaws
<
http://www.usgenweb.org/volunteers/bylaws.shtml> were adopted, we need to be more
particular in following some form of parliamentary procedure in our deliberations:
> ARTICLE XV. PARLIAMENTARY AUTHORITY
> The USGenWeb Project shall be governed by accepted parliamentary procedure, except in
those cases where such procedure
> conflicts with the existing bylaws of The USGenWeb Project.
This is a good thing, because it provides standard procedures whose sole purpose is to
protect the rights of members.
So what we really need to be discussing, right now, is a proposal that lays out the
details of our accepted parliamentary procedure.
Scott
Guernsey Cownty